A Trident nuclear missile failed, plopping into the Atlantic during a test launch attended by the British defence secretary last month, raising questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
The Ministry of Defence said that an “anomaly occurred” during the exercise involving the submarine HMS Vanguard on 30 January that was “event specific”, implying it would not have happened in the unlikely event of a war.
No further details about the embarrassing failure were provided, although the MoD insisted that “there are no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpile”. Defence sources added that Grant Shapps was present at the time the test took place.
Subsequently, Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the defence select committee, said in an interview with GB News that the problems related to testing gear. “I understand it was some equipment that was actually attached to the missile itself that prevented the firing of the rocket system after the missile had left the submarine,” the MP said.
Nuclear firing systems are complex and rarely tested and failures common, but it is the second time in a row a Trident missile try-out has gone wrong. In 2016, a missile that had been fired had to be destroyed after going off course. Instead of heading towards Africa it ended up veering towards the US.
The MoD had not intended to release a statement about the failure, although there was speculation among experts why a scheduled test expected around the end of January did not appear to have taken place. It had been intended for the missile to fly about 6,000km into the middle of the Atlantic between Africa and Brazil, according to warnings issued to mariners.
It was prompted to go public after a report in the Sun. According to an anonymous source quoted by the newspaper, the missile simply splashed into the ocean: “It left the submarine but it just went plop, right next to them.”
Labour called for assurances over the effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. The shadow defence secretary, John Healey, said: “Reports of a Trident test failure are concerning. The defence secretary will want to reassure parliament that this test has no impact on the effectiveness of the UK’s deterrent operations.”
David Cullen, an expert with the Nuclear Information Service, a monitoring group, said the latest failure was more significant than 2016 “not only because it’s the second in a row, but because the Trident missiles have gone through a life extension programme, so the current stock should be more reliable than it was in 2016”.
He added: “The whole point of the hundreds of billions we are spending on the nuclear weapons programme is that it is supposed to work, and be seen to work, at the prime minister’s command. Without that assurance, the entire endeavour is a failure in its own terms.”
The Sun reported that a dummy Trident II missile was propelled into the air by compressed gas in its launch tube but that its so-called first-stage boosters did not ignite. Trident II missiles are also used by US submarines, and are built by Lockheed Martin, using rocket motors from Northrop Grumman.
The first sea lord, Adm Sir Ben Key, was also present at the time to mark what was the final exercise for Vanguard and its crew after a refit of the vessel that took more than seven years, an MoD spokesperson said.
An MoD spokesperson said: “HMS Vanguard and her crew have been proven fully capable of operating the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent, passing all tests during a recent demonstration and shakedown operation, a routine test to confirm that the submarine can return to service following deep maintenance work. The test has reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, in which we have absolute confidence.
“During the test an anomaly occurred. As a matter of national security, we cannot provide further information on this; however, we are confident that the anomaly was event specific, and therefore there are no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpile. The UK’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure and effective.”
HMS Vanguard is one of four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines that first went on patrol in 1994, with one of the vessels continually at sea.
Each Vanguard-class submarine can hold up to 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles and will carry up to eight Trident rockets and up to 40 nuclear warheads, each capable of carrying a 100 kiloton bomb, over six times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
© 2024 The Guardian
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e756337753e60e9a2aec4e889aaabe542627ee8860675e50f836891b06d3ad0f.jpg
So what FFS?
The U.K.’s Vanguard subs have enough firepower to take out Muskovy and SP. Plus there are other warheads in deep storage that can be reactivated. There are tactical nukes also in storage.
The U.K.‘s present defence posture, including nukes, is now hopelessly out of date and the next PM will urgently have to go to 4% of GDP on defence spending from the current 2.5%.
If it’s Starmer, that is highly unlikely.
I think 4% is an awful lot of money to spend on defense, especially with the British economy stagnating over the past years and with current labour shortages. I think it is most important that the budget is stable and there is a clear vision on how to develop the armed forces.
I think current doctrine is to have just a bit of everything. A nuclear deterrent, overseas bases, an aircraft carrier, a modest tank force, a fairly capable air force. The UK built a lot of Navy ships they had to retire early or put in storage as they had more vessels than they could maintain and provide a crew for.
Maybe the British armed forces need to focus more on fewer things. Do you really need an aircraft carrier when your main threat is Russia? And how effective is it if you only have a single non-nuclear one that of course needs maintenance most of the time like any other aircraft carrier?
I think a large economy as the UK can build a very powerful armed forces with 2.5% of GDP but I think there is a need for a long term strategic vision in which they make choices.
^bert
Reads like a Party Political Broadcast for Starmer.
We have two carriers, not one btw. And we need two more.
But mostly we need to triple the number of combat troops, create many new tank battalions and manufacture many more long range fires.
As for your country, soon you will have tovarish Wilders in charge. So you may well find that you being “protected” by putlerstan.
Mobile airports are essential for an island nation like the UK. Bert is talking Ernie as usual. Aircraft carriers and bombers are essential more than ever. I posted this article as a wake-up call, not just for the UK. Peace is over, for a long time. Investing in the military, concerng RuSSia, China, India and the ME, is crucial for our survival. Otherwise we could join Ukraine’s fate in the near future.
I am not saying this is exactly what they should stop, but I feel they are doing a bit much in comparison to their budget and the manpower they have. You can also question if they need this many overseas bases, as some aren’t where the combat most likely is going to be. They can save money for example by sharing them with the U.S. or any other NATO country. But of course there are much better military strategists than a Bert.
To get more troops you can of course increase salaries, but businesses already have problems getting their skilled workers. They won’t be happy if the army buys their engineers from them.
I always like it when Western nations increased military expenses, especially considering that we will probably have to fight the Iranians, Chinese and Russians very soon, but I think the UK is already spending as much as they reasonably can.
Also, the UK has a substantial public debt of I think around 90% of GDP, which also limits how much the UK can spend on defense.
I think when countries like Germany and the Netherlands get their act together and pay their fair share, 2.5 will be fine for Britain’s need. They don’t need a huge land army for example as an Island nation, but rather a big air force and Navy. Of course given that the other European nations invest in proper ground forces.
Imagine the U.S. spends 4% of GDP on defense and has an economy dozens of times bigger than the UK. They can “only” afford 11 aircraft carriers. I think 4 would be unrealistic.
I actually don’t even know Stormer (I assume he leads Labour), so no coordination there. But I do think the UK’s leadership needs to make some choices on their strategic planning, as they either need to significantly increase spending which I think they will not be able to, or decide what they want to focus on.
You don’t want nuclear weapons that do not work, shortages of ammunition, brand new vessels in storage (this is currently happening), just because you want to have the widest array of capabilities.
^bert
Bert, counting peanuts is not a smart strategy when this world is facing the worst geopolitical crisis since WWII. One lesson from back then is to never let down your guard and defensive capabilities. Having a strong economy is completely useless when you are infested with cockroaches.
I am not saying the UK should neglect its military or spend less, by no means.
^bert